UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Ivan Lewis

  • Ivan Lewis – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Ivan Lewis – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ivan Lewis on 2014-04-25.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many fines of what total value have been imposed by HM Revenue and Customs on employers in Northern Ireland in (a) 2010, (b) 2011, (c) 2012 and (d) 2014 to date.

    Mr David Gauke

    This question has been taken as asking about fines related to non-payment of the NMW.

    The Government takes the enforcement of NMW very seriously and HMRC enforce the national minimum wage legislation on behalf of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). It does that by investigating all complaints made about employers suspected of not paying the minimum wage, in addition to carrying out targeted enforcement where it identifies a high risk of non-payment of NMW across the whole of the UK.

    Prior to 6 April 2009, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) issued penalty notices to those employers who failed to comply, within 28 days, with an enforcement notice. A new enforcement regime, introduced in April 2009, saw the introduction of automatic penalties for employers who are found to have underpaid their workers.

    The number and value of penalties issued to Northern Ireland employers for the calendar years 2010-14 is set out in the following table:

    2010

    2011

    2012

    2013

    Number

    63

    43

    30

    20

    Value

    £33,635

    £49,135

    £41,110

    £40,724
  • Ivan Lewis – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Ivan Lewis – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ivan Lewis on 2014-06-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, whether Ministers from the devolved administrations have been invited to the Girl Summit co-hosted by the Prime Minister and UNICEF on 22 July 2014.

    Justine Greening

    I confirm that Ministers from the Devolved Administrations are being invited to Girl Summit 2014.

  • Ivan Lewis – 2019 Speech on NHS Procurement

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ivan Lewis, the Independent MP for Bury South, in the House of Commons on 4 July 2019.

    I requested this debate this afternoon not only to put right a wrong that has been done to a long-established business in my constituency, but to highlight wider issues about Government procurement policy, particularly in relation to the national health service. The Government rightly talk about delivering a Brexit that supports UK businesses, jobs and our standard of living. However, this sorry story illustrates how, even before Brexit, we are unable to create a level playing field for our companies, let alone back them up. In this case, the EU cannot be blamed for a lack of transparency or fair competition, or for the exclusion of a UK company from an NHS preferred supplier list.

    Under NHS ProCure22, the Department of Health and Social Care appointed Kier as a tier 1 provider to decide who should be the preferred providers for floor covering in NHS facilities. In May 2018, without any competitive tendering or other transparent process, it was announced that three overseas companies would be on the preferred supplier list—two French companies, Tarkett and Gerflor, and a Swiss company, Forbo. James Halstead, a UK plc from my constituency with a 50-year track record of supplying NHS institutions was not on the list or even given the opportunity to tender or participate in dialogue with Kier.

    Halstead is highly successful global business that we are proud of in Radcliffe, with a global turnover of £250 million and a UK turnover of £83 million. The NHS currently accounts for approximately 15% of that UK turnover. A significant proportion of that is now at risk, and there is the also potential reputational damage of being excluded from the list for unstated reasons. Many NHS organisations are understandably asking Halstead why it is not on the list. That would be bad enough in any circumstances, but things have been made worse by the recent track record of the three overseas companies.

    In October 2017, the three companies were found guilty of price fixing over a 23-year period in France, and the French competition authority fined them a total of £302 million. They were found to have discussed minimum prices, price increases, sales policy and other sensitive information, such as their trading volumes. The French regulators discovered that the companies had also exchanged confidential, recent and detailed information on their sales volumes and commercial forecasts. That information was exchanged through the SFEC, a sectoral trade union in France, which was in charge of collecting the information and sharing it with manufacturers. It is surprising—some would stay staggering —that seven months later these same companies were given a monopoly as preferred suppliers for the NHS. In addition, it is worth noting that Tarkett pays no UK taxes whatsoever. To be clear, it is not breaking any laws in doing so, but that does not mean that there are no ethical and fairness issues.

    I have several questions for the Minister, and if he is unable to answer them today, I would be grateful if he would write to me in detail. What criteria did Kier use ​to draw up the preferred supplier list? In the absence of competitive tendering, what process did it use? Why were Halstead and other suppliers not included on the list or given the opportunity to put their case? What consideration was given to the probity of the three overseas companies in view of the sanctions imposed on them in France?

    Will the Minister assure me—this is incredibly important—that Kier will be instructed to add Halstead, and any other appropriate company, to the list as a matter of urgency? Will the Minister initiate a review of all such NHS contractor lists with a view to identifying how many are drawn up without a competitive tendering or transparent process? Finally, will the Minister issue an instruction in due course that NHS staff and third parties, such as tier 1 providers, appointed on the NHS’s behalf to commission goods and services should have a duty to be proactive in encouraging UK companies to apply or bid, depending on the relevant process?

    I believe that this case has wider implications for UK Government and NHS procurement policy than simply the effects on the business in my constituency. I want to make it clear that this is not about saying that, in an unlawful manner, the NHS or the Government should favour UK companies over foreign companies. That is not the case whatsoever, so officials should not try to deflect us away from the substantive issues here. The issue is that a UK company with a good track record, a history of financial probity, and quality goods and services should be on this list. It has never been sanctioned by any regulatory authority. In contrast, these three overseas companies were significantly sanctioned, less than a year before the NHS’s decision, for price fixing—basically operating a cartel in France—over a 23-year period.

    Clearly this is not a matter of direct ministerial responsibility and, having been a Health Minister, I do not hold the Minister personally responsible for individual procurement and tendering decisions, but Ministers are responsible for policy and oversight in this area. There has either been incompetence by those charged with these responsibilities or, frankly, something stinks in Kier’s decision-making process in this case.

    I would be incredibly grateful if the Minister responded to my substantive points, considered the wider implications for UK Government and NHS procurement and put right, as a matter of urgency, the wrong done to Halstead plc in my constituency.

  • Ivan Lewis – 2019 Speech on the Withdrawal Agreement

    Below is the text of the speech made  by Ivan Lewis, the Independent MP for Bury South, in the House of Commons on 12 March 2019.

    Public dissatisfaction with this place has never been greater. It is true that, when the country is so divided on Brexit, it was always going to be the toughest of challenges to earn public confidence and respect, but the failure of leadership in both the major political parties, coupled with the rigid ideological dogma of some Members, has made the situation far worse than it needed to be. Party and dogma have sadly been put ahead of country.

    I have been consistent throughout. I believe that the result of the referendum has to be respected. A belief in the central importance of democracy and the dire consequences for progressive politics if we were to ignore or attempt to subvert the result mean that we must leave. Holding a second referendum would, irrespective of its result, fuel a dangerous right-wing populism in our politics that would be likely to lead to long-term ​right-wing Governments in this country. However, the basis on which we leave and engage with the EU in future is all-important. It will shape our destiny for a generation. It must protect our economy, the standard of living of our constituents and our security. We also have a solemn duty to preserve the United Kingdom, which should only ever change through explicit public consent, and to protect the peace in Northern Ireland, which remains fragile—we should never forget that.

    The deal we are being asked to support tonight was overwhelmingly rejected back in January largely, but not exclusively, because of the Northern Ireland backstop. The Brady amendment passed by this House gave the Government a clear instruction that the backstop must be replaced in the withdrawal agreement by alternative arrangements; this has not happened. Some propose a time limit; this has not happened. Others wanted us to be able to unilaterally leave the backstop if negotiations fail; again, this has not happened. So none of the conditions laid down by the vast majority of the original deal’s opponents has been met, and this has been starkly underlined by the Attorney General’s legal advice of this morning.

    As I have said, I believe we do have a duty to implement the referendum result and leave the EU, and I will only support a minimum extension to article 50 which would ensure that we were not obliged to participate in European elections. Therefore, I will be willing to consider supporting this agreement, for all its perfections, if only the Government were willing to be clear about their aspirations for our future relationship. For the sake of trade, jobs and living standards, that has to include a customs arrangement of some kind with the EU. That could, but need not, be membership of the customs union itself. Not only is that the best way of securing economic stability, but it would guarantee that the backstop is consigned to the dustbin of history. The best means of achieving this is Common Market 2.0, with the UK moving into the EFTA pillar of the EEA and joining a comprehensive arrangement with the EU, maintaining a common external tariff with frictionless trade and no hard border in Ireland. We would seek to maintain the closest possible economic relationship with the EU without the political integration which the majority in this country opposed very clearly in the referendum.

    The time has come to put this, along with other potential solutions, to the House so we can indicate where a majority can be secured. We know what the majority are against; the time has come for the majority in this place, free from the constraints of party Whips, to make it clear what they are for. That would truly be acting in the national interest.

  • Ivan Lewis – 2005 Speech at BSA Financial Services Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ivan Lewis, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, at the BSA Financial Services Conference on 15 September 2005.

    Opening Comments

    1. Let me first thank the Building Societies Association for inviting me to say a few words this morning.

    2. As the trade association for our country’s building societies your voice is always worth hearing – and I am honoured to speak with you all today.

    3. It’s certainly a pleasure to be able to stand before you, and say with confidence that the macroeconomic framework we delivered has allowed unprecedented and stable economic growth – with low unemployment and sustained low inflation.

    4. We have before us today an environment that benefits long-term planning – that promotes social justice in general, and reduces the need for short-term precautionary saving in particular.

    5. And with household sector net wealth up by around 50% in real terms since 1997 – now worth over £6 trillion – this is an approach that has clearly worked well.

    Importance of the Sector

    6. And if we take the financial services industry on its own – if we take building societies alone – the UK clearly stands out, both in terms of quality and with the diversity of products on offer.

    7. With 63 building societies and total assets of around £250 billion, you are a major part of our financial services industry.

    8. Not only that, but around 15 million adults have building society saving accounts – and over two and a half million adults are currently buying their own homes with the help of building society loans.

    9. So as mutual institutions, you occupy a niche that is clearly important to Britain’s modern, economic well being.

    10. And perhaps you’d expect me – a Labour minister – to also appreciate a one member, one vote system – regardless of how much money each person has invested or borrowed or the number of accounts they may have. You’d be right.

    Asset Based Welfare

    11. But let me say – it’s partly because of your position in the industry – and the nature of your work – that I want to spell out a few of the things we’re doing at the moment. Specifically, I want to talk about Asset Based Welfare – and the direction of travel in the months and years to come.

    12. Asset based welfare is vital to Britain’s long term success – to our continued realisation of social justice and economic progress in the 21st century. We are a wealthy country, and we are in many ways very fortunate. But there are significant elements in our society – too many people – who still do not benefit.

    13. That’s why addressing the needs of those people – dealing with financial exclusion, increasing financial capacity, giving kids a real financial future – is important. And it’s why we emphasise asset based welfare as one solution.

    14. The aim of an asset based approach is to extend the benefits of holding assets. That means, for example, owning a house or having a stock of savings for those who currently do not hold such assets.

    15. And the so-called “asset effect” says that there are benefits for individuals in holding an asset which go beyond its basic monetary value.

    16. These benefits are both psychological and attitudinal, and it is this philosophy that led to the introduction of the Child Trust Fund and Saving Gateway pilot savings scheme that I’ll come onto later.

    Financial Inclusion

    17. So let me start by being blunt on these issues – let me start with financial inclusion.

    18. We are absolutely committed to tackling financial exclusion – and we’ve made some good progress since the 1999 Policy Action Team Report.

    19. Many of those recommendations on basic banking, credit unions and insurance with rent are now in place.

    20. But financial exclusion is a scar on our body financial. It is a an issue that can never be ignored or pushed down the collective list of priorities.

    21. Why? Well, in 2002/03 there were 2.8 million adults in households without a bank account of any kind.

    22. What’s worse – what really paints the picture – is that over two thirds of these people were in the lowest income deciles.

    23. I know you’re some of the best placed people in the industry to appreciate this. You know that households which operate solely on a cash budget are unable to make savings via direct debits on utility bills.

    24. They’re more vulnerable to loss or theft and they are far more likely to use the alternative credit market – and pay interest many times that of a standard personal loan.

    25. And I know you realise that can be the start of a spiralling debt cycle. That for those who do get into debt or who struggle to make payments, the supply of free face-to-face money advice can still fall far short of demand.

    Financial Action Now

    26. That’s why we’ve taken action. We set out some months back the next steps in tackling financial exclusion in three priority areas – access to banking, access to affordable credit and access to free face-to-face money advice.

    27. And we’ve established a framework for delivery – including a Financial Inclusion Fund of £120 million over three years and a Financial Inclusion Taskforce, chaired by Brian Pomeroy to oversee progress.

    28. What’s good is that both industry and government share the aim of reducing financial exclusion.

    29. We’ve agreed to work together towards the goal of halving the number of adults in households without a bank account, and of having made significant progress in that direction within two years.

    30. And to improve access to credit, we’re working towards a scheme where – in certain circumstances – private and third sector lenders can apply for repayment to be made by deduction from benefit, particularly where normal repayments arrangements have broken down.

    31. £10 million of the Financial Inclusion Fund has been allocated this year for the development of this scheme. A Growth Fund will also be set up from within the Financial Inclusion Fund to promote the coverage and capacity of third sector lenders in providing affordable loans.

    32. But we also want to see a significant increase in the capacity of free face-to-face money advice. The DTI are administering £45 million of the Financial Inclusion Fund to support that end.

    33. So a further £6 million will be used to pilot methods of debt advice outreach for those who do not present themselves to debt advisers.

    Financial Capability

    34. But in many ways, this is a two-step. On the one hand, exclusion remains a major challenge – and this is the first big task.

    35. On the other hand, we must be relentless in our pursuit of better capability – ensuring that our people have the skills and understanding of finance to properly deal with financial products. That is our second big task – and one that we have to tackle at the same time.

    36. I doubt anyone in this room would not want better informed, better educated, more confident citizens. People able to take greater responsibility for their financial affairs and play a more active role in the market for financial services.

    37. That’s why this second step – building up financial capability – is about providing consumers with the education, information and generic advice needed to make their financial decisions with confidence.

    38. Many consumers are still far from confident in the decisions they make about their financial circumstances and future – something picked up on with the Sandler Review.

    39. So those efforts to improve levels of financial capability are a key element of our wider commitment to tackle the cause and effect of social exclusion – and to do so while promoting the holding of assets and savings.

    Saving & Assets

    40. Doing that – ensuring people have assets and savings – is key to success. Its important for the building societies and banks, but it’s also important for us as a society.

    41. After all, assets and savings provide both opportunity and independence throughout life. They give flexibility to adjust to unforeseen events and financial security in retirement.

    42. So gaining access to even modest savings can help provide both security and insulation from adverse shocks.

    43. And to reflect this, our strategy is both universal and progressive. We want to make asset ownership accessible to all – and we have acted to achieve that by targeting support for those who need it most.

    44. For example, by giving over £2 billion in tax relief every year, through changes to benefit rules, better regulation, financial education and direct public spending.

    Child Trust Fund

    45. Key to making this work is engaging the younger generations – our kids now, and in the future. That’s why products like the Child Trust Fund are so important.

    46. As a groundbreaking initiative designed to strengthen the saving habit of future generations – it will ensure that at age 18, and for the first time in our history, every child will have access to a financial asset.

    47. And as of the 20th August, just over 889,000 accounts had been opened.

    48. What’s more, there are now over 110 official providers and distributors, many more than announced at the launch in January.

    49. This includes a wide range of institutions from across the financial services industry – from friendly societies to some of the largest institutions across the UK. And the list grows.

    50. We’re even now consulting on making a further payment into Child Trust Fund accounts at secondary school age – so I hope you all see how seriously we continue to take asset based welfare.

    51. So this Fund is a vital element in our savings strategy, which aims to ensure a range of savings products is available to suit people at all stages of their lives.

    52. What’s more, it will build on real financial education with a savings and investment account for children to engage with. It will help boost their confidence as they use the account and deal with financial providers.

    Stakeholder Range

    53. More widely, though, one of the recent findings that certainly made us sit up and take notice was from the 2002 Sandler Review.

    54. Amongst other things, Ron Sandler highlighted that:

    “the industry suffered from complexity and opacity, from problems of access for those on low to medium incomes, and from the inability of consumers to drive the market effectively.”

    55. And that’s why initiatives like stakeholder pensions are so crucial. With sales of just over 2.5 million stakeholder pensions since their launch, they have become an established and accepted product – and an easily understood one at that.

    56. Stakeholder is clearly a core component of our wider assets and savings strategy, offering people four simple, low cost, risk-controlled savings and investment products.

    57. And what’s more, they’ve had a visible impact on promoting asset based welfare – especially as stakeholders are now being bought by moderate earners, with two-thirds now held by people earning less than £20,000 a year.

    58. I even announced on Monday at the launch of the Stakeholder awareness campaign that indications are over half of all Child Trust Fund accounts opened so far are Stakeholder accounts.

    59. And I certainly know that building societies lead the field with provision of cash Child Trust Fund accounts – and as with all providers, that you also offer Stakeholder accounts.

    60. So I hope you’ll agree that this is very encouraging news for achieving the best returns for our nation’s children – and for the future of the stakeholder range itself.

    Closing Remarks

    61. So let there be no doubt – asset based welfare is here and it’s here to stay. As long as there are exclusion and capability issues to address, this government will continue to examine ways to improve support.

    62. From the Child Trust Fund through to better face to face help. From the savings gateways – which I haven’t gone into today, but which are another key plank – through to stakeholder products.

    63. This is how a decent society can achieve maximum impact on the challenges of 21st century living.

    64. It is how an effective government and a responsive industry can work together to ensure sustainable economic success and social justice is achieved and future generations are better off than those of today and yesterday.

    65. Thank you all.

  • Ivan Lewis – 2013 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ivan Lewis, the Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, to the 2013 Labour Party conference in Brighton.

    Conference, this is a historic year for our commitment to international development.

    And I want to start by saluting you. Without your campaigning, your passion and your values there is no way the United Kingdom would have reached the historic landmark in 2013 of spending 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income on overseas aid.

    It would never have happened without you. And it would never have happened without the leadership of a Labour Government.

    A Labour Government which tripled aid, transformed DFID into a world leading development agency and ensured the world wrote off debt.

    A Labour movement working with the decent majority of the British people in pursuit of social justice at home and abroad. That combination was unstoppable then and can be unstoppable again in the future.

    When the cynics say politics doesn’t make a difference. All politicians are the same. Remind them who created the National Health Service, who established Sure Start and who introduced the national minimum wage? And yes conference, who put Britain on the road to delivering its responsibilities to the poorest in the world. Labour, Labour, Labour and Labour again.

    Friends, too often we have allowed foreign policy to either be the preserve of an intellectual elite or fundamentalist anti-Europeans. Today, I signal our determination to take the fight and the arguments to the squeezed middle. That the interdependence and interconnectivity of the modern world is not a choice but a reality.

    People’s cost of living – their food bills, the costs of their fuel and the jobs which will be available to our kids and grandkids in the future are all influenced by developments way beyond our borders. That is why fair trade, energy security, tackling climate change and tax dodging are relevant to the everyday lives of people in our country.

    And to those who say we can’t afford to spend less than 1 penny in every pound on overseas aid, I say you are wrong. The One Nation Britain I love is a compassionate Britain, a Britain committed to fairness, a Britain which wants to see no child anywhere in the world left without food, a decent education or access to universal healthcare. A Britain where people give record amounts to Comic relief year after year in the good times and the bad.

    But also a Britain which understands our world is changing. We can’t allow short term austerity to undermine our long term national interests. Our aid recipients of today will be our trading partners of tomorrow. ‘One Nation One World’ is not a slogan but a living breathing expression of today’s interconnected and interdependent world.

    So Conference, what of the Tories?

    Of course, I welcome their decision to honour our commitment to 0.7. But the difference between them and us can be summed up in one sentence. “I didn’t come into politics to help poor people.” The chilling words not of some rogue right-wing Tory backbencher, but Justine Greening, David Cameron’s choice to be Secretary of State for International Development.

    Well, Justine I have a message for you this morning. I did come into politics to help poor people. So let’s bring this election on. And swap jobs as soon as possible.

    In only three years the Tories have squandered Britain’s world leading legacy on international development. David Cameron was unwilling to put the time in in the run up to the recent G8. This led to disappointing progress on the tax dodging which costs developing countries millions in lost revenue.

    Cameron has also failed to turn up for work at several key meetings where UK leadership on development could have made a real difference.

    And in typical Cameron style in retreat from the right wing of his party he has sought to face two ways. One day he says increasing aid is morally right, the next he panders to the right and makes false claims that in future it will be primarily used to plug holes in the defence budget or support business.

    A divisive Prime Minister leading a deeply divided party. For him, aid detox for the nasty party; for us, development an expression of our core values.

    Last year at Conference I asked Tessa Jowell to launch a global campaign to ensure investing in early childhood is put at the heart of the new post-2015 development framework. This summer Tessa and I visited Malawi where we saw for ourselves how in difficult circumstances and against the odds organisations like Sightsavers are offering hope to disabled children and their families.

    Today I can announce that Tessa is launching a global petition to mobilise people across the world to send a clear message to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that an integrated approach to the early years should be at heart of international development.

    If Sure Start and children’s centres are right for our kids then surely their underlying principles must be applied equally to the poorest kids in the world.

    And Conference, when we think about the poorest kids in the world let us reflect on what the children of Syria are facing today – witnesses to and victims of horrific violence.

    One million children made refugees; almost two million unable to go to school. That’s why it is so important that we not only do our part but galvanise other countries to step up to the plate and fulfil their responsibilities. Unfettered access for humanitarian agencies must now be the immediate top priority for the international community.

    Conference, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have made it clear Labour will apply iron discipline to the use of taxpayers’ money. This will mean a Labour DFID from East Kilbride to offices around the world will only invest in programmes which offer value for money, deliver change for the poorest and seek to support self-sufficiency and end aid dependency. We will always to be the first to respond to humanitarian crises.

    A tough independent inspection regime will inspect both DFID programmes and DFID offices. Where programmes aren’t delivering they will be ended, where offices aren’t performing they will be subject to special measures. And we will end the scandal of private consultants inspecting private consultants.

    We will work with business and NGOs to invest in the infrastructure and drive the cutting edge innovation deeloping countries tell us they need. But in return business will have to operate decent Labour standards throughout their supply chain, demonstrate a commitment to environmental sustainability and be transparent about tax and profits both at home and abroad.

    Conference, the horrendous collapse of Rana Plaza factory in Bangladesh which killed over eleven hundred people should be a wakeup call to us all. Fair rights for workers, progressive trade unionism and decent jobs should be the hallmark of successful economies and civilised societies. They will play a central role in Labour’s progressive development policies for the twenty-first century.

    In 2015 the world will come together to agree a new framework to replace the Millennium Development Goals.

    A framework which will apply equally to all countries. Where developed, developing and middle income countries have an equal stake in change.

    In the aftermath of the financial crisis and with the emergence of new economic and political powers such as China, India and Brazil this is a big opportunity to recast the values which shape our world. For us, business as usual is simply not acceptable. We want to see a focus on inequality, not just poverty, growth which is sustainable and benefits the poorest. Good governance which deals with the responsibilities of donors and multi-national companies as well as governments in developing countries.

    We have set out our vision for a new social contract without borders which brings together the world’s poverty reduction and sustainability objectives. Today I can announce we are mobilising global political change from opposition. We are in the process of developing a centre-left progressive coalition of politicians who share Ed Miliband’s belief that now is the time for radical change in the world, not tinkering at the edges. We favour big structural changes on tax, trade, climate change and inequality. We want to see an end to extreme poverty by 2030, but also an end to aid dependency with new relationships between nations built on reciprocity and shared values.

    In only 18 months we will be fighting an election in this country. The Tories will try to persuade the British public that international development is safe in their hands, that Britain’s role in the world is governed by cross-party consensus. Conference, don’t believe it. Our commitment is different, deeper-rooted in our history, broader in its ambition, and above all more firmly based on the values of social justice.

    When we come to the election, international development won’t be an issue we just tick off and pass by. It is an issue we will have to fight for.

    You see Conference, the difference between us and the Tories is we didn’t come into politics to explain the world as it is, we came into politics to change the world.

  • Ivan Lewis – 2012 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ivan Lewis, the Shadow International Development Secretary, to the 2012 Labour Party conference on 1st October 2012.

    Conference, I want to begin by thanking my wonderful team:

    Sir Tony Cunningham, Rushanara Ali and Ian Mearns, all of whom do an excellent job.

    But I know they will forgive me if I single out someone special. Someone who has never wavered in the fight for global equality and human rights.

    One of the leaders of a new generation of women who changed the face of our party.

    Conference, Glenys Kinnock may be leaving the frontbench but I have no doubt she will continue to be the strongest voice for those who are vulnerable and voiceless everywhere in the world.

    Glenys, on their behalf we thank you and salute you.

    Conference, it’s been quite a year. During the past twelve months I have had the pleasure of shadowing Jeremy Hunt, Andrew Mitchell and now Justine Greening.

    So I can tell you as a pleb with a ringside seat: these Tories may think they were born to rule, but as the British people now know, they aren’t fit to govern.

    I want to use my speech today to challenge the relentless attacks on development spending which are now coming from “the right.”

    But also to demonstrate if other countries match our commitment to aid and sign up to radical global change we could eradicate poverty by 2030 and reduce aid dependency.

    Conference, is it any wonder that the British people, so generous in their giving to good causes are conflicted when they think of the challenges facing the squeezed middle and public service cuts.

    We need to have the confidence to make the case and win the argument.

    We should absolutely clear in our response to those who argue for cuts to the aid budget.

    Why should the poorest in the world pay the price for the irresponsible, greedy behaviour of the top bankers?

    And a right-wing ideology which continues to advocate light-touch regulation and celebrate casino capitalism.

    First and foremost, our contribution to fighting poverty and tragedy is a moral imperative.

    But security, trade and migration also mean it is in Britain’s national interest.

    In an interdependent world to be a patriot is to be an internationalist. Not just for one fantastic Olympic Games, but always.

    Conference, it turns my stomach when I hear multi-millionaire Lord Ashcroft demanding that support for the world’s poorest should be slashed.

    The nasty party is back. It’s the same old Tories.

    Does this mean that the aid budget should be immune from the very real challenges we face in these difficult times?

    Of course not.

    That’s why we won’t be able to reverse the Government’s decision to cut the projected aid budget by 1.7 billion pounds.

    Although it should be understood that this is due to a reduction in Gross National Income, which in part is due to the failure of Tory economic policy.

    But it’s also why the Government should put right its broken promise to enshrine the link between 0.7 and GNI in law.

    This would ensure future changes to the budget, irrespective of whichever party is in power, would be permanently related to the economic state of the nation.

    And Conference, the critics would have you believe aid doesn’t work.

    It isn’t true.

    In one year under Labour, the Department for International Development helped train over 100,000 teachers, delivered almost 7 million bed-nets, provided 12-and-a-half million people with better sanitation and helped build or repair 4,500 km of road.

    UK aid saves lives and gives people the chance of a better future.

    We will support the Government if they honour our commitment to meet the 0.7 target by next year.

    But David Cameron is unable to provide leadership on development because the Tories advocate more of the same when what we need is radical change.

    The Tories believe in trickle down economics. We believe in the inextricable link between economic prosperity and social justice.

    The Tories view aid as charity. For us, development is the pursuit of social justice and human rights. Public-bad private-good drives their funding decisions.

    Delivery capacity, value for money, innovation and accountability will be our criteria.

    They are isolated in Europe. We need to have influence over an EU development budget which accounts for 20 per cent of UK spend.

    Conference, as Ed Miliband has said, we believe now is the time for big global economic and social change.

    Growth which is sustainable, companies that are both profitable and responsible, meaningful agreements on fair trade and climate change, universal access to free healthcare, compulsory education and social protection.

    Global human rights with no exemptions for our allies. Women’s rights at the heart of conflict resolution.

    Decent work, decent labour standards for workers everywhere.

    And Conference, no more hiding places for the tax dodgers who steal from the poorest people and poorest countries in the world.

    And yes Conference, if these changes were to be made we believe poverty could be eradicated and aid dependency reduced by 2030.

    Replacing paternalism with dynamic partnerships between north and south, developed and middle income countries.

    Conference, a different vision, different values.

    Tony Blair and Gordon Brown didn’t provide leadership on the MDGs, debt and 0.7 to detoxify our brand.

    They did so because it is who we are. Social justice and human rights are the very reason for our existence.

    They are why we are Labour. For this movement now and through history, social justice has no borders, only new frontiers to be conquered.

    That is why today I am delighted to announce the party which created Sure Start in Britain will also be the party which champions the case for prioritising early years development across the world.

    I have asked Tessa Jowell, the founder and first Minister for Sure Start and architect of our great Olympic success, to lead a global campaign to ensure an integrated approach to the early childhood years is at the heart of the new post-2015 global development framework.

    I am delighted that Sarah Brown, Global Patron of the White Ribbon Alliance who has achieved such amazing progress on maternal health, has agreed to support Tessa in her new role.

    If all the evidence demonstrates investment in the earliest years makes the most difference to our children’s lives, the same evidence must surely apply to the health, education and parenting of the poorest children in the world.

    Conference, as staunch defenders of development we must also be reformers.

    Like any Government Department DfID is not immune from waste or poor decisions.

    Also, the more we focus our resources in conflict-ridden and fragile states the greater the risks we are taking.

    We should be honest about that.

    My value for money test will be what difference is our spending making to the poorest and whether it is contributing to an end to aid dependency long-term.

    And the development community, including our world leading NGOs, should be as passionate about how we spend the hard earned money of donors and taxpayers as they have been in campaigning for 0.7.

    Even the most radical development agenda in the world will be seriously undermined by inadequate progress in the fight against corruption.

    To coin a phrase, it’s time to get tough on corruption and the causes of corruption.

    I am determined that from day one of the next Labour Government we will have an effective new anti-corruption plan for the UK and a strategy for building a new anti-corruption coalition around the world.

    I am delighted that Hadeel Ibrahim of the Mo Ibrahim Foundation, renowned globally for shining a light on governance issues in Africa, has agreed to undertake a review on our behalf and to identify tangible action which will lead to real change.

    I am particularly keen UK diaspora communities have an input.

    The next Labour Government will be champions of development but also warriors for value for money and against corruption.

    Conference, I want to end by dedicating this speech to the women I met in Chad earlier this year.

    I felt a mixture of horror and admiration as I watched them beating anthills to extract the tiniest bits of grain to feed their family.

    They pleaded with me to make sure they would have enough food to give their kids one proper meal a day as yet another food crisis hit.

    They don’t get left from right, the different editorial positions of the Guardian and Daily Mail.

    They just want to be able to feed their kids.

    You and I joined this movement to change the world not explain the world as it is.

    So conference, for us, social justice will always have no borders, only new frontiers.

    Thank you.

  • Ivan Lewis – 2011 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ivan Lewis to the Labour Conference on 27th September 2011.

    Conference.

    I want to begin my speech today with some thank yous.

    To my brilliant team Gloria de Piero, Ian Lucas, Ian Austin and Ian Murray for their commitment and support during the past year. To Sophie, David and my constituency team for their endless patience and sound advice. But most of all to you.

    Those of us who sit at the top table of the Labour Party in Parliament should never forget the debt of gratitude we owe to the party activists, trade unionists and party staff who in every community in every part of this country are the heart and soul of this great movement.

    Conference, the history of the relationship between this Party and the Murdoch press is a complex and tortuous one. But what can never be complex or tortuous is the responsibility of politicians to stand up for the public interest without fear or favour. That is why today please join me once again in paying tribute to the courage and tenacity of Tom Watson, Chris Bryant and John Prescott for the service they have done to our country in exposing the phone hacking scandal. And let us also recognise that when the country reacted with revulsion to the news that Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked while the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister dithered, it was our leader Ed Miliband who day after day provided the leadership which was needed and spoke for the nation when he said, enough is enough.

    Of course, we must wait for the police to do their work and the Leveson inquiry to report. But there are some lessons we should learn now.

    Firstly, never again can one commercial organisation have so much power and control over our media. In the period ahead, Labour will bring forward proposals for new tougher cross media ownership laws.

    Secondly, in Britain a free press is non-negotiable. It was brilliant investigative journalism primarily by the Guardian which forced a reopening of the police investigation when too many vested interests simply hoped it would go away. But with freedom also comes responsibility. Neither the current broken system of self regulation or state oversight will achieve the right balance. We need a new system of independent regulation including proper like for like redress which means mistakes and falsehoods on the front page receive apologies and retraction on the front page. And as in other professions the industry should consider whether people guilty of gross malpractice should be struck off.

    Thirdly, a message for Mr Murdoch. Your newspapers and Sky TV are popular with millions of British people. Some people in our Movement might find that uncomfortable but it’s true. However, and yes Conference, we should have said this a long time ago. Mr Murdoch, never again think you can assert political power in the pursuit of your commercial interests or ideological beliefs. This is Britain, Mr Murdoch. The integrity of our media and our politics is not for sale.

    And Mr Cameron, I believe in second chances too. So, let me give you another chance to level with the British people. Isn’t it time you and George Osborne came clean about why you appointed Andy Coulson in the first place and despite numerous warnings took him to the heart of our democracy at No 10 Downing Street?

    Conference, in just over a year Jeremy Hunt, has gone from rising star to the long list of wannabe former potential Prime Ministers. This Tory-led Government have decimated our world-leading school sports system, launched a concerted attack on public investment in the arts, threatened many libraries and are marginalising creativity in our education system. At a time when jobs and growth should be a top priority their VAT increase is bad for tourism, and delayed broadband roll out, bad for business.

    The height of their ambition for London 2012 is to deliver a successful event. In stark contrast to Labour’s Olympic legacy vision to deliver the biggest expansion of sports participation in our history.

    But Conference, criticising them is not enough. As Ed has said this week, we have to give people a sense of how we would do things differently. So let me give you some examples.

    The success of our creative industries is at serious risk due to global competition, the impact of the new digital economy and the policies of this Government. If these industries are to provide the British jobs of the future we need a government committed not to a helpline but an active, industrial strategy. Earlier this month, Ed and I launched Labour’s new creative industry network. The network will pilot a fairness pledge to encourage these historically closed industries to open up their internships, apprenticeships and jobs to people based on talent, not social background or family networks

    I am delighted to announce today that Channel 4, Virgin Media, UK Music, The Royal Shakespeare Company, The Advertising Association and the Sharp Project have agreed to sign up to this pledge. We hope many other businesses and organisations will follow suit and break down barriers which have no place in a 21st Century Britain.

    Conference, we should be proud of Labour’s ground-breaking free admissions to museums and galleries. And proud of our great local, national and global arts institutions. This party should celebrate, not be embarrassed by cultural excellence. But we should be concerned that in whole swathes of our country north, east, south and west there are still too many communities which don’t have fair access to great theatre, live music, art, opera, history or heritage.

    Conference, cultural inequality offends Labour values. In the same way that every community expects fair access to education, the NHS and policing. We should ask how do we harness the excellence of our great cultural institutions to enrich the lives of all our citizens from the great metropolitan centres to the inner cities and rural communities. I am not arguing in these difficult times for more spending. But even after the cuts £542million is being spent via the Arts Council and National Lottery. As we shape new cultural policy for the future let us lead a national debate about what fair access to the arts and heritage should mean.

    Conference, in future I also want us to be radical in putting sport at the heart of our policy agenda. Sport is a health policy, an education policy, an economic policy and a community cohesion policy.

    Equally, it is time to ask some fundamental questions about the relationship between grassroots and high level professional sport. To use football as an example. The Premier League is a tremendous commercial success and in many ways has rejuvenated our national game. But can it be right that last year they turned over 2 billion pounds and top flight players are earning an average of 72 thousand pounds per week. While the Football Foundation’s funding which supports improvements to local pitches and changing facilities can only scratch the surface of need and is now being cut. Surely, not only the kids but the thousands of soccer and hockey mums and dads, volunteer coaches and organisers who are the hidden heroes of our grassroots sport have a right to ask how this can be fair. They have a right to expect our Party to ask those questions. We will not let them down. And can I also be clear, as we meet today in this great city of Liverpool, when Parliament resumes Labour wi ll stand shoulder to shoulder with the Hillsborough families in demanding the full disclosure of all government documents relating to that horrific tragedy.

    Conference, let me end by saying this. The first Labour Conference I attended was not as a special advisor but a steward. I was told to look out for any dodgy looking delegates. Believe me it was a full time job!

    I would never have dreamt that I would have the chance to serve nine years as a minister in a Labour Government and become a member of the Shadow Cabinet.

    But I didn’t join the Labour Party in order to join the establishment. I did so because I had a burning desire to help build a more just society. I didn’t want to explain the world as it is, I wanted to change the world. Twenty-two years on that burning desire is as strong as ever. We should oppose this Conservative-led Government when they are wrong with all the strength we can muster. But we must also be the party of change offering a different vision for a better future. That is what I intend to do.